Simionas Blog Post 5

     In his book Dark Ghettos, Tommie Shelby presents an argument for a new way of thinking of ghettos in America and a new framework for considering solutions to commonly faced problems in ghettos that center around justice. In this discussion, Shelby raises the point of what individuals' roles are in resolving injustice, as the oppressors, the bystanders, and the oppressed. Shelby distinguishes his work from the “work that does exist [that] often focuses on the affluent or bystanders rather than on the oppressed” and explains what the “the unjustly disadvantaged are morally required and permitted to do in response to the unjust conditions that circumscribe in their lives” (5). He writes that if there can't be an ethics of the oppressed there can't be an agency of the oppressed, and that he will balance not viewing the “ghetto poor as inert” nor “rush to blame them and to romantically celebrate them” (6). 

He goes on in chapter 2 to discuss how “the oppressed should contribute to the reform effort, not simply out of self-interest but because the duty of justice enjoins them to do so” and that “the duty to help correct injustices is binding regardless of who the victims are, whether others or oneself” (57-58). In the next few pages Shelby does explicitly detail that the fight to solve injustice should not add to the burdens of the oppressed or cause more backlash towards Black people, the disadvantaged group in question, and that if a burden must be placed that we must “keep these costs to a minimum, and, importantly, give the oppressed maximal freedom in choosing the form that these necessary burdens take” (76). Shelby obviously sees that there is a duty of the oppressed in pursuing justice while acknowledging that they cannot take on the burden of these changes (like those involved in integration arguments). He also qualifies that he is not necessarily outlining exactly what the oppressed should do but more identifying that they have a responsibility to do something in the pursuit of justice, but my question is where does one draw the line between what the oppressed are responsible for in the handling of injustices and what is abusing or overworking or asking too much of an already oppressed group? 

    On a small scale example, after the numerous Black Lives Matter protests this summer the idea began to float around our campus organizations, groups, and conversations that non-Black students should not be reliant on their Black peers to educate them on Black issues. It was not the role of Black students to take on more emotional and mental labor to educate the white students on why their racist actions are draining. To me, this is a small scale example of drawing the lines between what groups who have been racially discriminated against are responsible for, even if these conversations they would have could be moving towards justice, or a better understanding of the discrimination they feel. How does this translate to the responsibilities towards justice Shelby is referring to? Are there any similarities? What would the responsibility of the oppressed vs. the oppressors look like?